Skip to main content

* JULY 3, 2009

In Political Ads, Christian Left Mounts Sermonic Campaigns



By STEPHANIE SIMON

Randy Brinson, a conservative political consultant in Alabama, has been fielding anxious calls for weeks from business interests across the South.

Their concern is massive ad blitz on Christian and country-music stations across 10 states. The ads, funded by a left-leaning coalition, urge support for congressional legislation to curb greenhouse-gas emissions -- by framing the issue as an urgent matter of Biblical morality.

"As our seas rise, crops wither and rivers run dry, God's creation cries out for relief," begins one ad, narrated by an evangelical megachurch pastor. Another opens with a reference to the Gospel of John, slams energy interests for fighting the bill, and concludes: "Please join the faithful in speaking out against the powerful."

Dr. Brinson tells his clients they are right to be worried. Such an aggressive political campaign by the religious left is unexpected, he says, and could prove powerful. "This is the first time I've seen a moderate group of evangelicals come together and do a coordinated campaign," said Dr. Brinson. He is warning clients: "You're going to hear a lot more of this."

Emboldened by what they see as a kindred spirit in the White House, progressive and liberal Christians are stepping up their political activism in a big way.

A religious coalition called the American Values Network spent nearly $200,000 placing the global warming ads. Some political analysts credit the campaign with boosting support for the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which narrowly passed the House last week.

The coalition plans to spend an additional $150,000 in the coming months to enlist pastors in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado to rally support in the pews as climate-change legislation moves through the Senate.

Another left-leaning religious coalition will begin airing scripture-citing radio ads in key congressional districts this weekend, calling for legislation to make health insurance more affordable. The coalition -- which includes Faith in Public Life, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good -- also is distributing an eight-page guide, full of Biblical quotes and health-care statistics, to encourage pastors to raise the issue in sermons.

Democratic lawmakers representing conservative districts say such efforts help them make the case to skeptical constituents that they aren't simply toeing the party line -- or turning into bleeding-heart liberals -- when they support President Barack Obama's calls for health-care and climate-change legislation.

"It's important for people to see that it's not just [Democrats] saying this is important, but people who are coming at it from a moral background," said Rep. Tom Perriello, a freshman Democrat who has come under fire in his rural Virginia district for supporting the climate bill.

The religious right and secular conservatives are taking notice. In recent weeks, key religious-right groups such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have heavily promoted the work of a group called the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. The Cornwall Alliance dismisses global-warming alarms as hype and argues that forceful action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions could cripple the economy and harm the poor. It is organizing conservative pastors to carry this message to the pews.

The religious left has a long tradition of activism on social issues, including the civil-rights movement. But for the past quarter century, faith-based politicking has been dominated by the religious right, which built a powerful army of activists -- and a formidable fund-raising machine -- on the strength of leaders such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority and radio host James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

The religious left's re-emergence as a strong voice -- with the financial backing to make aggressive media buys -- is a "seismic shift," said D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University who studies evangelical politics.

"The religious left is experiencing today what the religious right had in 1981," Mr. Lindsay said. "They've finally found a White House that's not just tolerating but welcoming, affirming, of their involvement."

Left-leaning Christian groups also have started to attract funding from secular donors who share their political goals -- and who see Biblical appeals as a promising way to broaden public support.

Oxfam America has worked with churches for years, but on relatively non-controversial campaigns such as staging fasts to call attention to world hunger. Now, the group is teaming up with the religious left to push for congressional action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

E. Calvin Beisner, a spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance, says the right has to respond forcefully to the well-funded campaigns from the religious left, because "they're certainly not being silent."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Of course, since global warming ended in 1998


That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way.

Global warming is an amazingly complex and often contradictory theory but there is no denying the factual data.

Image source NASA Link

Attachments

Images (1)
  • temp
Let's ignore global warming for a minute. Take a look around you, even in the big cities. Do we honestly think the amount of CO being released from vehicles has no effect on the environment? Look at our rivers. 30 years ago I would gladly eat any fish from the Tennessee River. Now I wouldn't. We should be good stewards of what we have been given.

Now let's reopen the global warming question. Does the results make a difference? The Earth will eventually purge itself or mutate to accept its existence. The rock may be here.

The good news: I doubt I will be around when the results hit home hard enough to concern the general population. For now we will continue to debate what will happen. Nothing . . . warming . . . cooling . . . natural . . . unnatural, we do know it will change.

The better news: Some crazy nut will probably nuke us off the map or we will grow some crazy virus before any environmental catastrophe. We just may be lucky enough to be part of the culling of the population.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Of course, since global warming ended in 1998


That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way.

Global warming is an amazingly complex and often contradictory theory but there is no denying the factual data.

Image source NASA Link



Yep temps been going up since the last Ice Age, they'll cool down before the next ice age, life is full of cycles.
quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
Let's ignore global warming for a minute. Take a look around you, even in the big cities. Do we honestly think the amount of CO being released from vehicles has no effect on the environment? Look at our rivers. 30 years ago I would gladly eat any fish from the Tennessee River. Now I wouldn't. We should be good stewards of what we have been given.

Now let's reopen the global warming question. Does the results make a difference? The Earth will eventually purge itself or mutate to accept its existence. The rock may be here.

The good news: I doubt I will be around when the results hit home hard enough to concern the general population. For now we will continue to debate what will happen. Nothing . . . warming . . . cooling . . . natural . . . unnatural, we do know it will change.

The better news: Some crazy nut will probably nuke us off the map or we will grow some crazy virus before any environmental catastrophe. We just may be lucky enough to be part of the culling of the population.


Our rivers are cleaner now than 30 years ago. About 40 years ago, one of Cleveland, Ohio's rivers caught on fire due to pollution.
The hottest year recorded in the US was in 1934, around the time of the dust bowl. 1998 was second, third was 1921.

Link

Link

If the planet has been warming since 1998, then we should have at least broken the record set in 1921. We haven't. Not only have we not broken it, the past few years haven't even come close. For global warming to exist, the temperatures have to actually increase. If they're not, then there is no warming.

Link
Must be all those drivers and coal plants on Mars.
LOL.


Cow Flatulence it’s not.

National Geographic is reporting that Global Warming may have a different cause than Cow Flatulence and all the hot air Al Gore is releasing. Appearantly, the polar ice caps on Mars (yes, that Mars) have been melting significantly over the last three summers.

NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Wow. Scientists actually suggesting that it isn’t caused by what Al would like us to believe? Bet that doesn’t get embraced in the same way as they seem to have embraced Darwin. Of course, that would be because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. Sun Cycles don’t make very good social platforms.

Welcome to the lemming parade…


Link
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The hottest year recorded in the US was in 1934, around the time of the dust bowl. 1998 was second, third was 1921.

Link

Link

If the planet has been warming since 1998, then we should have at least broken the record set in 1921. We haven't. Not only have we not broken it, the past few years haven't even come close. For global warming to exist, the temperatures have to actually increase. If they're not, then there is no warming.

Link


Gore has that covered already Nash. It's called "climate change". Can't be wrong with a name like that.
"That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way."

No! Do you not see the contradiction of your own statement? No warming in the last eleven years. The same pattern happening on Mars (and Pluto) as on Earth. Yet, CO2 is blamed for the changes on Earth. Such a statement defies scientific principles.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
And, instrumentation vastly improved in the last decade.


Nope. Mercury thermometers today and just as accurate as mercury thermometers 100 years ago. That kind of technology doesn't "advance."

But besides that, there are many other ways to measure temperature.

Folks, there is absolutely no denying the global warming effect yet here we have a representative group of people who are ding just that. You may as well put your fingers in your ears and yell "nah nah nah!"

Personally, I'm not too terribly concenred. I'm not convinced that GW is necessairily a bad thing but there almost certainly will be changes in our climate over the next 100 years that will have an effect. I do beleive it is best to keep a wary eye out for ways we may mitigate this change or manage it to our advantage but there is no denying that your grandchildren will have to deal with this - whether its a good thing or not.

Here is some data from NOAH -you know, a member of the vast conspiracy to send everyone in into a panic?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

There is no debate on the relationship between CO2 levels and rising temperatures, folks.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Remember, folks, this is called "global" warming. Yes, it's cooler here in the south but there is no debate that the global average is increasing. No debate, people.

There is a wealth of data on the subject in very easy-to-understand language. You evangelical GW-deniers can deny reality all you wish. It matters not to me. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real, is probably man-made and will result in climate change for the better or worse.

Link

(And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)
Cookie, read the last link I posted. It was written by a man who has spent his life researching, learning, and reporting the weather. He's not a politician who stands to make tons of money off carbon credits.

Link

The Japaneese are calling BS on it.

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”

Link

Europeans are starting to see that it's BS.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Link

The Canadians are figuring out that CO2 isn't a pollutant, but a natural and necessary part of nature that is vital for plant growth.

What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs? Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.


Link

The Australians don't believe it either.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?" She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Link

As for a consensus? There is none, there are plenty of scientists who are rejecting the theory.

Link

Link

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

There is no global warming. The one simple fact proves it, we haven't come close to the record set in 1921, the third hottest year. There are plenty of other facts that also prove it, but that one is the biggest.

Your statements that there is no debate about global warming is a political tactic used to silence opposition. There is a very big debate about it because inflation is about to take a huge jump upward based on a faulty theory.

To say that there is a scientific consensus when clearly there is not is untrue. There are plenty of scientists all over the world who are calling BS on global warming.

It's not happening. We had a brief period with increased sun activity, now it's died down and we're cooling off. It's happened all throughout history. The warm period during medieval times followed by the little ice age. No cars or Al Gore back then, but there was climate change.

It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want, but we're all about to be paying through the nose for political based science when the cap and trade crap passes. When you're paying $5 per gallon in gas, you can thank yourself for it.
The technology improvements would be in the data aquisition systems. Previously, data collection relied on human beings eyeballing the thermometers and recording it by hand. I can see there being a lot of error with the old method due to human error and laziness.

Another answer for ground level temp. increases would be the urban island heating effect. As we build up and populate geographical areas, the ground level temps increase. This has nothing to do with CO2 and this data is averaged in with all the other temps, which skews the overall result.

Cookies responses have been all boilerplate liberal media/politician fodder. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming. I believe many of the scientist who agree with global warming, or climate change, do so only because they will lose grant money if they speak the truth. The only consensus over global warming is Hollywood, liberal politicians, and liberal media, none of which comprise the scientific community.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want,


I find it interesting that there certainly seems to be a correlation between "true believers" and the denial of the facts of global warming. I think perhaps there is some tendency for believers to disregard facts that get in the way of their beliefs.

Me? I willing to be persuaded. I personally am wholly undecided on whether or not GW is good or bad but I'm undecided because the scientific community is undecided.

But the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community soundly asserts that global warming is real and is probably man made.

Here is another link to a socialist, anti-god, communistic schemer in the vast global warming conspiracy that has some interesting things to say about the issue, the National Geographic: Link
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.



So we are the cause of temps rising on mars too. The argument is how much is man made. Right now we are in a cooling period, why do you think the loons of the left renamed Global warming to Climate Change?

Why do the loons cheer on Gore's Climate change tour while he is creating more CO2 by himself than a neighborhood of regular folks. Ah the hypocrisy if it. Gore loves this talk to the tune of a 100 million so far, keep paying his way, he loves you for it.

Everything thing in this world cycles or did man cause cycles too?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×